"The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt."

Um...

I have preached, and preached very insistently, that "God" is not just some person's name, and it isn't just some category, like: apple, fish, bicycle, God, turnip...

I have preached that "God" is, by definition, the ultimate. "God" is where the buck must inevitably stop. This is the only way to make sense of Paul equating covetousness with idolatry (Col. 3:5). It isn't that Paul is saying that covetous people associate the omni-'s with money or stuff. It's that they live for it, it is ultimate to them, it trumps other considerations.

From this, I have also preached that, if you have something that can trump God, then that — and not God — is really God.

So you can call God "God," but if you think "free will," or chance, or contingency, or the stars, or anything else trumps God, then that is really God, and that is what we should worship.

Now, Scripture insists that GOD is God. I know, breaking news. He created everything just the way He wanted it, just by wanting to and saying so (Gen. 1:1). It's all as it is as an expression of His will (Ps. 33:6, 9). He does what He wants, everywhere and at all times (Psa. 115:3). I go into this at some length in TWTG, and even give a little chart showing the coterminous nature of God's will and God's accomplishments.

And then there's God as WLC depicts Him, a God who is confronted by realities beyond His control, and who is forced to play the hand He is dealt. (By whom? one wonders.)

To me, this is a classic illustration how unwillingness to deal with a God as massive as Scripture depicts Him will invariably lead to absurdity. There comes a point where a man, a woman, is forced to say "Boy, if I stay on this road, I'm going to have to say some pretty bizarre things." And then he stays on that road and says those bizarre things... or he bails on the bad road and bows the knee to the big God of Scripture, who Himself is the dealer.

And if the response is "Yeah, well, God dealt Himself the hand of being dependent on the will of others whose will is beyond his control"... we've just moved the ball, haven't we? Not really solved anything.

"And then there's God as WLC depicts Him, a God who is confronted by realities beyond His control, and who is forced to play the hand He is dealt."That sounds a lot like Norm Geisler too. I recently reviewed his latest book "If God Why Evil" and basicaly what that book boils down to as well. According to Geisler, God's hands are tied by our human wills so He just does the best he can without trampling our will. UGH.

The more I think about this, the more unfortunate and impoverished Craig's response seems. "God must play the hand he's been dealt." So the Sovereign of the Universe (who doesn't sound terribly 'sovereign' over anything at all) is effectively playing a GAME with all creation that He has every potential to LOSE? Really??

Portraying God as having to play the hand He's dealt implies the Creator of the Universe has to answer to a still higher power. That idea attacks everything we know about Him in the Scripture. It's more damaging than the buffoon Craig is attempting to tackle. At least one guy is honest enough to say he doesn't believe the bunko.

A hand-wringing God who "hopes we'll all turn out for the best" is just a big teddy bear up in the sky that we can all hug, tell our troubles to, and commiserate with.

I'd rather have one to cry out to and depend on. That sort of means the Scriptures are involved somewhere in there.

So the mark is moved from random, meaningless, purposeless existence to could-be random, might-be meaningless, somewhat purposeless existence? I don't see how that is better.

Without God as ultimate source and being, Romans 8:28 is not a promise, just hopeful conjecture. I couldn't trust him to deal with my wife's persistent joint pain in her hands and bring good from that.

So does that mean that he can also make the claim, "The devil made me do it"? Because surely if God can not control what His creation does, then we can't control what we do. At least it makes about as much sense to say so.

I get how this makes sense from Craig’s perspective considering his views on Predestination (it’s wrong and sad, but it makes sense from his point of view). The thing I find really odd is that Craig is a big fan of the Ontological argument which has as its basis "a being that no greater being can be conceived”. How does a God who is at the mercy of “the hand he has been dealt” not leave room for conceiving of a greater God?

If being at odds with Scripture doesn’t get Craig’s attention maybe being at odds with himself will.

I have to admit that most of the time WLC gives me a headache because I have trouble understanding what he is trying to say. (How is it when RC Sproul explains the same things, it is clear and concise?).

Anyway -- Really? GOd has no control? Than who is in control? Sounds like man -- I guess the promise of "you shall be like God" came true after all. Poor God, His creations have gotten out of control....

I am in the process of preparing a series of sermons on God's sovereignty in election. I have found John Frame's massive tome "The Doctrine of God" to be immensely helpful. He believes the central message of scripture is the supreme Lordship of God. How he works this theme out in the book is a tour de force to be reckoned with.

William Lane Craig: Having logically valid, clearly formulated arguments is going to make you look smart and increase your credibility in [non-believers’] eyes, which will only make your witness more effective (Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 190, emphasis mine).

I believe the all-sufficient Scripture has something to say against that too.